Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday April 13 2017, @05:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.

Now new technology and a rare bipartisan push from lawmakers who are trying to reduce regulations for the sale of hearing aids are raising hopes that more people with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy hearing devices a lot more cheaply and without seeing a doctor.

It's a modest-sounding goal, but supporters believe the measure on Capitol Hill could lower prices, spur innovation, and ultimately get hearing aids into the ears of far more people. Only 15 to 30 percent of people who need hearing aids actually get them, according to some estimates.

Currently, regulations in most states, including Massachusetts, require consumers to go to a licensed audiologist or other specialist to purchase a hearing aid. The average cost: $2,300 per ear.

Legislation sponsored by Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa would supersede individual state rules and force over-the-counter hearing aids into the national market. It has the support of AARP, which is the largest lobbying group for seniors and advocates for people with hearing loss. But it is drawing opposition from hearing aid makers and a major trade association for audiologists.​

Supporters say the bill could unleash competition and put hearing aids that cost a few hundred dollars on the shelves. It could also foster technology that, among other benefits, allows consumers to use smartphones to control their hearing aids.

Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/04/10/bipartisan-bill-would-make-hearing-aids-cheaper-and-more-accessible-but-some-doctors-object/17H4hx5qSPsPAITu2s997L/story.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:43PM (3 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:43PM (#493548)

    Regulation is only necessary when the market proves itself to be a bunch of dicks who will only act reasonably when forced.

    Well, either that or we have a social agenda we want to push. Potayto, potahto ;)

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:55PM (1 child)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 13 2017, @06:55PM (#493559)

    Regulation is necessary to protect consumers from harm and exploitation (for instance, food laced with melamine or other poisons or drugs that harm instead of help), and to keep markets competitive (for instance, to prevent monopolies and reduce the power of large companies or oligopolies).

    The problem is when this is subverted and ends up having the opposite effect from that desired, such as propping up existing oligopolies and preventing new competition.

    In well-run countries, regulation usually works pretty well, but of course nothing's perfect. In really screwed-up countries, regulation doesn't help protect consumers and only helps enrich incumbent players. Use this simple classification and readily-available evidence to determine which kind of country you live in.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 14 2017, @01:24AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday April 14 2017, @01:24AM (#493750) Journal

      Yeah, you're describing "regulatory capture," which is an oddly euphemistic term for a process that basically does to the regulatory apparatus what Cordyceps spp. do to ant brains.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday April 14 2017, @06:55PM

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday April 14 2017, @06:55PM (#494151) Homepage Journal

    The filthy state of America's environment before the EPA is proof enough that regulation is necessary, and my grandfather falling down an elevator shaft is proof enough to me that OSHA is needed.

    Face it, all publicly held companies are run by assholes who care about nothing but money. Kill people? Sure, why not? We don't need no steenking elevator doors! Why make it so hard for a roofer to fall, he's not important.

    There can be too much regulation, or too heavy handed a regulation, but regulation itself is needed, and only fools and those who fool them think otherwise.

    --
    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org